Complaints from neighbours: my tenant keeps rabbits

[JDM2008]

My tennants live in a property which has a shared courtyard. They keep rabbits in a hutch in the shared courtyard, and I have received 3 complaints from a neighbour that the rabbits are not looked after, are smelly and that straw from the hutch blocks drains and is not cleared up properly. I have been and inspected the property on 2 occasions in the last 6 months and would not consider the rabbits to be badly looked after. The neighbour is demanding that I get rid of the rabbits. My reaction is that the neighbour and my tenant should sort it out between them, or should I advise my tenant in writing that a complaint has been made? Please advise what my legal obligations are. I don't see why I should evict an otherwise good tenant.

[justaboutsane]

Tell the neighbour to contact RSPCA they are the only ones that can deal with the neglect issue. Its possible the tenants have had a falling out with their neighbour and they are trying to cause trouble.

Let the neighbour know that you cannot interfere with the quiet enjoyment of the tenant and that unless you are called out re the drains there is no issue for you to answer!

[JDM2008]

Thanks very much for that - just what I was hoping!

[jeffrey]

Tell the neighbour to contact RSPCA they are the only ones that can deal with the neglect issue. Its possible the tenants have had a falling out with their neighbour and they are trying to cause trouble.

Let the neighbour know that you cannot interfere with the quiet enjoyment of the tenant and that unless you are called out re the drains there is no issue for you to answer!

Not quite.
1. Does the Letting Agreement prohibit pets? If so, T is in breach: s.8 Notice on ground 12?
2. Is the property leasehold? If it is, L's keeping of pets [T's actions imputed to him] may be breach of covenant.

[JDM2008]

The letting agreement doesn't prohibit pets and the property is freehold. What do you advise?

[PaulF]

Not quite.
1. Does the Letting Agreement prohibit pets? If so, T is in breach: s.8 Notice on ground 12?.

Not necessarily - an outright prohibition is likely to be considered an unfair contract term.

[agent46]

Not necessarily - an outright prohibition is likely to be considered an unfair contract term.

Ah, it was only a matter of time before the UTCCR "Get Out of Jail Free" card made its appearance.

Please explain why you believe it is likely to be considered an unfair term*





*Let me guess - would your proposition be based on that mythical and so far uncited and apparently untraceable European case a solicitor told you about?

[jeffrey]

"...likely to be considered..."
Isn't precise legal argument a wonderful thing, folks?

[attilathelandlord]

Well if all else fails rabbits make wonderful eating!

[agent46]

"...likely to be considered..."
Isn't precise legal argument a wonderful thing, folks?

Why bother with precise legal argument which requires years of studying and training to perfect when one can just make grand declarative and unsupported statements like pulling rabbits out of a hat (no pun intended)?

[Paragon]

Not necessarily - an outright prohibition is likely to be considered an unfair contract term.

Why do you say "likely"? Have you read some case history recently? Or are you just stewing things up?

[Lyndy Lou]

Hi

Just to flag that since the new Animal Welfare Act came in last year, owners can be prosecuted for keeping rabbits in a hutch 24/7 as it is deemed cruel. The new Law states they must have a large run with roof height large enough that the rabbits can stand on their back legs, and must also have access to a large, grassy area to run around in on a daily basis. So if your tenants neighbours get the RSPCA involved then unless they start looking after them properly, they will be taken away from them and re-homed.

Lyndy Lou
(An animal lover!!)

[jeffrey]

Hope that Glenn Close knows this.

[Esio Trot]

Just to flag that since the new Animal Welfare Act came in last year, owners can be prosecuted for keeping rabbits in a hutch 24/7 as it is deemed cruel.

Pray tell me, who has made the assertion that it is cruel?

The new Law states they must have a large run with roof height large enough that the rabbits can stand on their back legs, and must also have access to a large, grassy area to run around in on a daily basis.

I find no reference to this when looking at the Animal Welfare Act. Please tell us your source. Also, I see no exemption for battery chickens, and they are vertebrate animals - why do rabbits get this special treatment and not chickens?

So if your tenants neighbours get the RSPCA involved then unless they start looking after them properly, they will be taken away from them and re-homed.

Rather a grand assertion here methinks.

Lyndy Lou
(An animal lover!!)

Obviously there may be no connection here, but I do find it strange how many animal lovers tend to have a greater affinity for those that look sweet and cuddly.

Lastly, I too find rabbits tasty, and would much prefer to eat one of these than a chicken. Dead easy to kill too - it's catching the wild ones that is the challenge.

[agent46]

Obviously there may be no connection here, but I do find it strange how many animal lovers tend to have a greater affinity for those that look sweet and cuddly.

.

It's the revised version of Darwin's Law of Evolution: "Survival of the Cutest."

If an example of the law's application is needed one only needs to look to "Dolphin Friendly" Tuna. Well it's not very Tuna-friendly is it? I bet if Tunafish could balance balls on their noses and perform other endearing anthropomorphic tricks then they wouldn't find themselves between 2 slices of bread so often would they?